I think we do best to assume a cummunicative partnership or cooperation between a writer/speaker and his audience. Such a partnership implies different functions for different forms.
For instance, I think we should distinguish in Hebrew narration between scene-setting that is done with a noun sentence (a.k.a. verbless clause) and that which is done with a sentence using the qatal of HYH. To be specific, the noun sentence may describe a state as it existed at the time the narrator is focused on. In contrast, the sentence using qatal of HYH may describe the "coming into a state."
Put another way, the best English translation of the noun sentence used in the narration of the past utilizes *was* or *were*. E.g. (Gen 1:2)
(noun sentence)vexoshekh `al peney tahom
"and darkness *was* upon the surface of [the] deep."
The best English translation of qatal of HYH in narration of the past utilizes *had become*. E.g. Gen 1:2
(qatal of HYH) veha'erets hayetah tohu vabohu
"And the earth had become..."
Another example of a qatal of HYH in narration is in Gen 3:1
(qatal of HYH) vehanaxash hayah `arum mikkol xayat hassadeh
"And the serpent *had become* more subtil than any animal of the field."
In other words, the Lord did not create this animal in such a problematic condition. The animal had become so over time.
Gen 4:21 uses both forms:
(noun sentence)veshem 'axiyv jubal
"And his brother's name *was* Jubal"
(qatal of HYH)hu' hayah abi kol tophes kinor ve`ugab
"And he *became* the father of all players of lyre and harp."
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.